| Author |
Message |
Bloke
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:33 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
"Steve Hayes" spake thus:
| Quote: | John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
But who were the somebodies, and when and why did they write it?
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
A bunch of clever-trousers in the church, commissioned by King James I, did
it. The first edition (authorised for reading in churches) was published in
1611, with numerous amendments and revisions since (flame warning! this is
heresy amongst some King Jim enthusiasts).
Any evidence that the 1611 edition said "authorised" rather than
"appointed"? |
| Quote: | These asertiosns are all very well, but they beg the question.
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
|
Apologies, Steve, for stating "(authorised for reading in churches) ",
rather than 'appointed' - my bad.
As for the other 'assertions' in that paragraph, please specify which ones
beg the question, and would be happy to comment.
Found this useful response by Rev Ward Powers to a similar question (in
quotes) about when or how it became authorised at
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2000-July/012607.html, snipped
text follows:
| Quote: | The King James Version of the Bible is often known as the Authorized
Version. Questions can be raised as to the appropriateness of the title
"Authorized Version," however. On the title-page are the words "Appointed
to be Read in Churches," but it was in fact never officially authorized by
either Parliament or the Convocations of Canterbury or York, namely the
two authorities in the government and the Church of England. The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, s.v. "Authorized Version
of the Bible," p. 114, notes: "It immediately superseded the Bishops'
Bible, and won favour by its intrinsic merits rather than by official
backing."
|
[Ward's reponse] I quite accept that it won favour on its merits. I note
that in the New
International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Ed. J D Douglas), p.127,
F F Bruce writes, "Both the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles were superseded by
the 'Authorized Version' of 1611, a work which proved so acceptable that it
remained, for three centuries, without a serious rival, the Bible of
English speaking Protestants." But is it certain beyond question that "it
was in fact never officially authorized"?
Bruce goes on to say. "When published it was probably authorized by order
in council. Probably - because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to
1613 were destroyed by a fire in January 1618/19, so that no record of the
authorization survives."
So there is perhaps a modicum of doubt.
| Quote: | It makes no sense to me to call it the "Authorized Version" since it was
never authorized by any group that had either secular or ecclesiastical
authority.
|
I cannot agree. For these reasons:
1. If our options are "Authorized Version" and "King James Version", the
former has a great deal more in its favour than to attribute the
translation, in some way, to King James.
2. During this period in England and up to the past century it was not
known by any other designation but "the Authorized Version" - it was
certainly not known as the "King James Version", an American designation,
and the extent to which that latter designation is making inroads outside
America is due (not to any merit in the designation, but) to the influence
of American publishers who use that title on all their multifarious
editions of it. The Authorized Version has the merit of being its original
title.
3. If Frank Hughes is correct, then we have the anomalous situation that
from the beginning it was described as authorized, and not called anything
else in the country of its origin, and yet nobody actually authorized it. I
find this inherently very unlikely.
4. As Frank Hughes mentions, it states on its title page that it has been
"Appointed to be Read in Churches", and so far as I am aware nobody at the
time denied that this was the case. The title "Authorized Version" is
therefore appropriate as embodying the fact that the Bible was now
officially freely and widely available - in contrast with the earlier
period when for "ordinary people" to read the Bible was an offence, and to
the period just before the AV when different translations were in
competition and favoured by different groups. And the AV won its way
against this competition on its very considerable merits.
[..]
Ward
http://www.eagles.bbs.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:23 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:33:00 +0800, "Bloke" <here@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Steve Hayes" spake thus:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
But who were the somebodies, and when and why did they write it?
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
A bunch of clever-trousers in the church, commissioned by King James I, did
it. The first edition (authorised for reading in churches) was published in
1611, with numerous amendments and revisions since (flame warning! this is
heresy amongst some King Jim enthusiasts).
Any evidence that the 1611 edition said "authorised" rather than
"appointed"?
These asertiosns are all very well, but they beg the question.
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Apologies, Steve, for stating "(authorised for reading in churches) ",
rather than 'appointed' - my bad.
As for the other 'assertions' in that paragraph, please specify which ones
beg the question, and would be happy to comment.
|
The "when" question was answered by Raymond Wise who said 1824, and the "why"
question was answered by Don Aitken.
I don't think both are *true*, because they are incompatible, but at least
they answer the question asked.
Saying that it is authorised because it authorised begs the question, and a
lot of other answers in the thread begged the question.
The reason it was called the authorised version was that somebody wrote it.
That was one answer given in the thread.
The original question did not say "who", but it appears from the answers given
that the first person to call it the "Authorised Version" was Joseph Smith in
1824.
Again, I'm not sure if that is true, but those are some of the answerrs given.
So we have:
When: 1824
Why: Bdecause the preface said it was isued "by authority"
Who: Joseph Smith.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:57 am
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote:
| Quote: | John Dean wrote:
CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized
Version?
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering a
different question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA or
from people who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and in this
case the answer to the question asked was from Don Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between American
English and other Englishes, or if it is a cultural trait of the USA.
|
Consider this: Most people I know here in the USA don't call the King
James Version of the Bible (the KJV) the "Authorized Version." It may be
"the Authorized Version," but if I wanted to buy a KJV in a book store,
for instance, I'd ask where to find the King James Version of the Bible
(or, in a Christian book store, the "KJV"). If I asked for the
"Authorized Version" -- just that -- someone might well ask "the
authorized version of what?"
As for the actual question -- "Anyone know when and why the King James
Version of the Bible started to be called the Authorized Version?"
-- I just checked the five KJVs I have. Three say "The Authorized King
James Version" on the title page. One says "The King James Version." The
fifth says "The Authorized or King James Version." That last one was
published in 1979 and 1982. The first four are older.
Beyond that, I know nothing as to the "when and why" in John's question.
There is some information at
http://www.saintaquinas.com/bible_versions.html
(and other Googleable sites, I imagine) but my thinking is that the KJV
has been, since it came along in 1611, "the Authorized Version." If some
folks have lately begun calling it that without mention of "King James
Version," then I must not know any of them.
My husband and I have two Catholic versions (Confraternity of Christian
Doctrine) of the Bible, but the KJVs are mine. (I became a Catholic
after my wedding. One big difference between Catholic and Baptist that I
find is in the music. Catholic hymns simply can't compare to Protestant
ones. They are a bit better now than when I married, but still, they're
not really close to Protestant when it comes to making a joyous noise
unto the Lord and feeling uplifted.)
Many of my favorites can be found at this site:
http://www.preciouslordtakemyhand.com/christianhymns/isawthelight.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/1za0
You may think there's a "southern gospel" feeling about most of the
songs there. I agree.
| Quote: | It has happened in another thread in AUE (the "Allah" one).
And in another newsgroup there was a poster, apparently from the USA,
who attacked a statement by a group of Anglican bishops in Africa,
and almost every point was an attack, not on what they said, but on
what they did not say.
I am beginning to think that people in the USA are unable to
understand questions asked by people in other places, and insist on
answering questions that were not asked, and evading the questions
that were asked.
|
Well, what if I asked you a bunch of questions using certain AmE words
and phrases that you are not accustomed to using? What if those phrases
and terms mean something else entirely to you? Or nothing at all to you?
Maria Conlon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
"Jim Ward" <tomcatpolka@NyOaShPoAoM.com> wrote in message
news:gaklo095c6vglck8ai8vmho4a3hve5i45l@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Apropos of nothing, one of the first translations of Scripture is the
Septuagint, done by a "committee of 70".
|
From the *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia:*
"The name Septuagint was derived from a legend that 72 translators worked on
the project."
MWCD11 gives the etymology as "Late Latin _Septuaginta,_ from Latin,
seventy, irregular from _septem_ seven + _-ginta_ (akin to Latin _viginti_
twenty); from the approximate number of its translators."
"Late Latin _Septuaginta,_ from Latin, seventy, irregular from _septem_
seven + _-ginta_ (akin to Latin _viginti_ twenty); from the approximate
number of its translators."
*The Century Dictionary* of 1895 ( www.century-dictionary.com ) gives the
first definition of the Septuagint (a definition it labels as obsolete) as
"The Seventy--that is, the seventy (or more) persons who, according to the
tradition, made a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The
rounded legend is that the translation was made by seventy-two persons in
seventy-two days. In another view, the Seventy were members of the
sanhedrim (about seventy in number) who sanctioned the translation."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bloke
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
"Steve Hayes" spake thus:
| Quote: | John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
But who were the somebodies, and when and why did they write it?
|
I read your last line as asking more general questions around the origins of
the KJV/AV, not what made it authorised, since that was John Dean's
question. My use of 'authorised' was a mistake.
| Quote: | I don't think both are *true*, because they are incompatible, but at least
they answer the question asked.
Saying that it is authorised because it authorised begs the question, and a
lot of other answers in the thread begged the question.
|
Please forgive my errancy in light of the above.
Bloke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | "Jim Ward" <tomcatpolka@NyOaShPoAoM.com> wrote in message
news:gaklo095c6vglck8ai8vmho4a3hve5i45l@4ax.com...
Apropos of nothing, one of the first translations of Scripture is the
Septuagint, done by a "committee of 70".
*The Century Dictionary* of 1895 ( www.century-dictionary.com ) gives
the first definition of the Septuagint (a definition it labels as
obsolete) as "The Seventy--that is, the seventy (or more) persons
who, according to the tradition, made a translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures into Greek. The rounded legend is that the translation was
made by seventy-two persons in seventy-two days. In another view,
the Seventy were members of the sanhedrim (about seventy in number)
who sanctioned the translation."
|
You mean the sanhedrim <gulp> "authorized" it?
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:57:52 -0500, "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes wrote:
John Dean wrote:
CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized
Version?
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering a
different question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA or
from people who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and in this
case the answer to the question asked was from Don Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between American
English and other Englishes, or if it is a cultural trait of the USA.
Consider this: Most people I know here in the USA don't call the King
James Version of the Bible (the KJV) the "Authorized Version." It may be
"the Authorized Version," but if I wanted to buy a KJV in a book store,
for instance, I'd ask where to find the King James Version of the Bible
(or, in a Christian book store, the "KJV"). If I asked for the
"Authorized Version" -- just that -- someone might well ask "the
authorized version of what?"
|
Well, good for them.
| Quote: | As for the actual question -- "Anyone know when and why the King James
Version of the Bible started to be called the Authorized Version?"
-- I just checked the five KJVs I have. Three say "The Authorized King
James Version" on the title page. One says "The King James Version." The
fifth says "The Authorized or King James Version." That last one was
published in 1979 and 1982. The first four are older.
|
When I moved this to this thread, I wasn't concerned about the answer to the
actual question, but about the readines of some people to answer any question
BUT the actual question.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:45 am
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
[snip, snapped, have snup] |
| Quote: | As for the actual question -- "Anyone know when and why the King
James Version of the Bible started to be called the Authorized
Version?" -- I just checked the five KJVs I have. Three say "The
Authorized King James Version" on the title page. One says "The King
James Version." The fifth says "The Authorized or King James
Version." That last one was published in 1979 and 1982. The first
four are older.
When I moved this to this thread, I wasn't concerned about the answer
to the actual question, but about the readines of some people to
answer any question BUT the actual question.
|
Well, this is aue, where such readiness is expected.
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Holmes
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
Don Aitken wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:44:42 -0600, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:cmc18u$37o$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
I can tell you when the name "Authorized Version" first appeared in
print: 1824 according to *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,*
11th edition.
But the words "printed by authority" appear (still, I think) on the
title page of editions produced in the UK. The one I have, published
in 1908, has the Royal Licence in the front matter, as follows:
"LICENCE
In terms of Her Majesty's Letters Patent to her Printers for Scotland,
and of the Instructions issued by Her Majesty in Council, dated
Eleventh July and Twenty-eighth December Eighteen Hundred and
Thirty-nine, I hereby License and Authorise WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS, AND
COMPANY LIMITED to Print and Publish as by the Authority of his
Majesty, but so far as regards the text only, an edition of the Holy
Bible in Nonpareil Type, Trigesimo-secundo size, to consist of Thirty
Thousand Copies, as proposed in their declaration, dated the Eighth
Day of March, Nineteen Hundred and four; the terms and conditions of
the said Instructions being always and in all points fully complied
with and observed by the said WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS, AND COMPANY
LIMITED."
It is the "authorised version" because no edition of it may be
published in the UK without this authorisation. This was been true
ever since the translation was made. Such authorisation is given only
to Collins and Eyre and Spottiswoode, as successors to the
King's/Queeen's Printers for Scotland and England respectively, and to
Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. No attempt has ever been made
to restrict publication abroad.
|
I have an 1869 Oxford one that doesn't have the wording above. The title
page is quite simple, in fact:
THE
HOLY BIBLE
CONTAINING THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS:
TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES: AND WITH THE FORMER
TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED,
BY HIS MAJESTY'S SPECIAL COMMAND
--------------------------------------------
APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES.
(Crests of BBFS and OUP here)
OXFORD:
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
FOR THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY,
INSTITUTED IN LONDON IN THE YEAR 1804.
SOLD TO SUBSCRIBERS AT THE SOCIETY'S HOUSE, EARL STREET, BLACKFRIARS,
LONDON.
-----------------------------
PICA POST 4TO. REFS. M.DCCC.LXIX CUM PRIVILEGIO.
There are no other publication details or introductory matter than that
one page.
Does that imply that it was produced only for use abroad, or is the 'cum
privilegio' understood to mean the same as your edition's licence?
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus those of alt.usage.english
at tpg dot com dot au |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. W. Love
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
John wrote:
| Quote: | I have an 1869 Oxford one that doesn't have the wording
above. The title page is quite simple, in fact:
THE
HOLY BIBLE
CONTAINING THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS:
TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES: AND WITH THE FORMER
TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED,
BY HIS MAJESTY'S SPECIAL COMMAND
--------------------------------------------
APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES.
|
Mine, given as a gift in 1929 and probably printed in the 1920s, has all that,
though in upper- & lower-case letters, and then, in italics:
Authorized
King James Version
followed by arms showing an open book with the words DOM / INUS / ILLV / MINA /
TIO / MEA, and two crowns above it and one below it, presumably in the place
of:
| Quote: | (Crests of BBFS and OUP here)
|
The word "Cum" stands at its left, and the word "Privilegio" at its right. It
then has:
| Quote: | OXFORD:
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
|
But it does NOT then have any of this:
| Quote: | FOR THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY,
INSTITUTED IN LONDON IN THE YEAR 1804.
SOLD TO SUBSCRIBERS AT THE SOCIETY'S HOUSE, EARL STREET, BLACKFRIARS,
LONDON.
-----------------------------
PICA POST 4TO. REFS. M.DCCC.LXIX CUM PRIVILEGIO.
|
Instead, it has:
London: Humphrey Milford
Oxford University Press, Amen House, E.C.4
New York and Toronto
and in tiny type:
Brevier 16mo Clarendon Text India Paper*
and nothing follows the asterisk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean O'Leathlobhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<418addbf.242178534@news.saix.net>...
| Quote: | On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:04:45 +0100, "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net
wrote:
CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized Version?
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering a different
question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA or from people
who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and in this case the answer to
the question asked was from Don Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between American English and
other Englishes, or if it is a cultural trait of the USA.
|
I don't like the answering-the-wrong-question tactic either but I did
not think that it was restricted to American English. I know some
non-Americans people who do this frequently.
Please criticise the habit but I think it is a bit unfair to suggest
that it is solely or mainly American.
| Quote: | It has happened in another thread in AUE (the "Allah" one).
And in another newsgroup there was a poster, apparently from the USA, who
attacked a statement by a group of Anglican bishops in Africa, and almost
every point was an attack, not on what they said, but on what they did not
say.
I am beginning to think that people in the USA are unable to understand
questions asked by people in other places, and insist on answering questions
that were not asked, and evading the questions that were asked.
|
I thought that this was common in many places especially among
politicians. I listen to the Today Programme (*) most mornings and I
hear this frequently. Some of the culprits are American but most are
not. I don't blame the habit on different dialects since in some
cases the interviewer and interviewee are not only both British but
from similar areas with similar backgrounds.
(*) Current affairs programme on BBC Radio 4.
I blame it on one of two things. If not deliberate then an inability
to cope with sophisticated discussion. If deliberate, a tactic to
avoid answering awkward questions or introduce alternative subjects of
your choice.
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote on 07 Nov 2004:
| Quote: | hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote .
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, "John Dean" wrote:
CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized
Version?
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering a
different question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA
or from people who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and
in this case the answer to the question asked was from Don
Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between
American English and other Englishes, or if it is a cultural
trait of the USA.
I don't like the answering-the-wrong-question tactic either but I
did not think that it was restricted to American English. I know
some non-Americans people who do this frequently.
Please criticise the habit but I think it is a bit unfair to
suggest that it is solely or mainly American.
It has happened in another thread in AUE (the "Allah" one).
And in another newsgroup there was a poster, apparently from the
USA, who attacked a statement by a group of Anglican bishops in
Africa, and almost every point was an attack, not on what they
said, but on what they did not say.
I am beginning to think that people in the USA are unable to
understand questions asked by people in other places, and insist
on answering questions that were not asked, and evading the
questions that were asked.
I thought that this was common in many places especially among
politicians. I listen to the Today Programme (*) most mornings
and I hear this frequently. Some of the culprits are American but
most are not. I don't blame the habit on different dialects since
in some cases the interviewer and interviewee are not only both
British but from similar areas with similar backgrounds.
(*) Current affairs programme on BBC Radio 4.
I blame it on one of two things. If not deliberate then an
inability to cope with sophisticated discussion. If deliberate, a
tactic to avoid answering awkward questions or introduce
alternative subjects of your choice.
|
I agree with all you've said here, Sean, but I don't think the
original criticism was appropriate for this thread. This is AUE, and
we answer however we like, regardless of the question. It does happen
sometimes that the question is not clearly worded and it also happens
sometimes that the poster answering is not thinking clearly or
reading with with comprehension for whatever reason.
I also don't think the question "Anyone know when and why the King
James Version of the Bible started to be called the Authorized
Version?" calls for "sophisticated discussion". My answer, for
example, was obviously a pun and intended to be a response to the
second part only. I won't attempt to explain or excuse or justify
anyone else's answers; that's for them, if they think it's necessary.
I do think that Mr Hayes was overreacting a tad and must have been
led astray because of the recent American election results, which
caused many an American living in the USA to "feel like an expat
living in" their own country, but I doubt that this has any relation
to any AmE speaker here refusing to answer the question asked.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:52 am
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2004 05:10:46 -0800, jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean O'Leathlobhair) wrote:
| Quote: | hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<418addbf.242178534@news.saix.net>...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:04:45 +0100, "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net
wrote:
CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized Version?
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering a different
question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA or from people
who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and in this case the answer to
the question asked was from Don Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between American English and
other Englishes, or if it is a cultural trait of the USA.
I don't like the answering-the-wrong-question tactic either but I did
not think that it was restricted to American English. I know some
non-Americans people who do this frequently.
Please criticise the habit but I think it is a bit unfair to suggest
that it is solely or mainly American.
|
Perhaps.
It was just that most recent examples seemed to be from Americans, and that it
was people from other places (usually the UK) who tried to answer the
questrions actually asked.
I realise that thread drift takes place, and that some points raised in one
post can spark off not-quite-related thoughts. But when a person asks a fairly
clear question, and people answer a different questrion altogether, it seems
that there is a breakdown in comunication.
| Quote: |
It has happened in another thread in AUE (the "Allah" one).
And in another newsgroup there was a poster, apparently from the USA, who
attacked a statement by a group of Anglican bishops in Africa, and almost
every point was an attack, not on what they said, but on what they did not
say.
I am beginning to think that people in the USA are unable to understand
questions asked by people in other places, and insist on answering questions
that were not asked, and evading the questions that were asked.
I thought that this was common in many places especially among
politicians. I listen to the Today Programme (*) most mornings and I
hear this frequently. Some of the culprits are American but most are
not. I don't blame the habit on different dialects since in some
cases the interviewer and interviewee are not only both British but
from similar areas with similar backgrounds.
(*) Current affairs programme on BBC Radio 4.
I blame it on one of two things. If not deliberate then an inability
to cope with sophisticated discussion. If deliberate, a tactic to
avoid answering awkward questions or introduce alternative subjects of
your choice.
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
|
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
| Quote: | jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean O'Leathlobhair) wrote:
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote.
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized
Version?
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering
a different question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA
or from people who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and
in this case the answer to the question asked was from Don
Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between
American English and other Englishes, or if it is a cultural
trait of the USA.
I don't like the answering-the-wrong-question tactic either but I
did not think that it was restricted to American English. I know
some non-Americans people who do this frequently.
Please criticise the habit but I think it is a bit unfair to
suggest that it is solely or mainly American.
Perhaps.
It was just that most recent examples seemed to be from Americans,
and that it was people from other places (usually the UK) who
tried to answer the questrions actually asked.
I realise that thread drift takes place, and that some points
raised in one post can spark off not-quite-related thoughts. But
when a person asks a fairly clear question, and people answer a
different questrion altogether, it seems that there is a breakdown
in comunication.
|
Just because the responses did not meet with your approval, Steve,
does not mean that there was "a breakdown in communication", merely a
dissonance between reality and your expectation.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( ``And the La
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
CyberCypher wrote:
| Quote: |
Steve Hayes wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean O'Leathlobhair) wrote:
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote.
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized
Version?
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering
a different question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA
or from people who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and
in this case the answer to the question asked was from Don
Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between
American English and other Englishes, or if it is a cultural
trait of the USA.
I don't like the answering-the-wrong-question tactic either but I
did not think that it was restricted to American English. I know
some non-Americans people who do this frequently.
Please criticise the habit but I think it is a bit unfair to
suggest that it is solely or mainly American.
Perhaps.
It was just that most recent examples seemed to be from Americans,
and that it was people from other places (usually the UK) who
tried to answer the questrions actually asked.
I realise that thread drift takes place, and that some points
raised in one post can spark off not-quite-related thoughts. But
when a person asks a fairly clear question, and people answer a
different questrion altogether, it seems that there is a breakdown
in comunication.
Just because the responses did not meet with your approval, Steve,
does not mean that there was "a breakdown in communication", merely a
dissonance between reality and your expectation.
Sometimes the issue in mutual unintelligibility is that you can't |
understand yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in